Re: CONSERVATION OF ENERGY

[Jim Green <JMGreen@sisna.com>]

>                             There is the Palmer Classical
> Thermodynamics approach which requires faithful adherence to the
> established forms.  However, for many of us (and I suspect Ludwick may be
> in this camp), we are instructing non-majors in introductory courses who
> will never take a 'Classical Thermodynamics' course.  We must deal with
> books in which heat, heat energy, heat flow and a variety of other
> 'sloppily used' terms appear and (if we can actually get students to read
> the books) must be dealt with. 

Leigh and I have some very fundamental differences, but we certainly agree
that imprecision in language while teaching physics is just sloppy teaching.
(At least I hope we agree.)  The fact that the writers of introductory texts
use this sloppy language is not an excuse for teachers to do so.  The fall
out is manifold, but here are the major problems:

1) If sloppy language is used while teaching neophytes OUR understanding
becomes foggy -- We see this in the current thread where it is clear that
the understanding of some is wanting -- and consequently when we teach
majors, we use the same sloppy language -- and this grievous problem
perpetuates as these majors become the next generation of teachers.

2) Those neophytes go on to influence others in their future professions --
talk to a biologist for example -- their physics is horrendous -- and *they*
have students too.  Or perchance they become majors and then somebody is
going to have to unteach all the cartoon physics.

3) The writers of those textbooks are now in our classes.  Where do you
think they get these sloppy ideas.

Just me over here in my corner,






Jim Green
JMGreen@sisna.com